AIDS dissent is largely based on misunderstanding and misinformation. It is arguably costing lives. This is one attempt to try to collate all relevant facts in one place, so that no-one need die of ignorance.

WWW AIDSMYTH.BLOGSPOT.COM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Further falls in my estimation

Oh the irony - Liam Scheff arrives on my blog firstly challenging me to post his comments, then to reply on his own blog, and through it all taking pot-shots at my personal and professional ethics.

So I take the unusual step of actually going to his site and writing in.

And after receiving two posts which he presumably either cannot refute, or which unfortunately don't fit his perception of me as an evil Pharma-Nazi, he shuts down discussion with two further posts fading into the ether...

However, since I assumed (rightly) that Liam would do such a thing, I saved the posts for posterity. Here are the comments that Liam would rather not have on his blog, saved as screenshots of the fact that these comments were in the moderation queue while he let other posts through.

36 Comments:

Oh, it gets worse, as a denialist crops up stating that all orthodox explanations of HIV pathogenesis are merely CDC citations without scientific references, and that if I don't reply I must somehow lack integrity.

Alas, when faced with censorship (from a journalist no less!!!) what can one do..?

This is classic. The denialists whine continually about a lack of "debate" by scientists, and yet ban scientists and doctors, or anyone who is not in full denial, from almost all of their bulletin boards, blogs, etc.

Well he accuses you of the same thing... But yes...I think it's stupid to delete comments...

May I remind that there is still an award for the scientist who proves the existence of HIV, like £10,000. You can contact Alexander Russell for it.

I came to this blog to listen to your side of the AIDS-debate, which I didn't even know existed until some time ago. But I read some of the earlier comments and examined your art of argumentation. Now your attitude convinced me that you are not an objective scientist, Liam isn't either. And I'd appreciate it if you could redirect me to a more decent scientist(not Gallo), who argues only from a neutral/scientific point of view and who shares the same scientific view as you, so that I can get a better understanding of this debate. Thanks and good luck.

Alex Russell is an interesting person - I think I debated with him some time ago on the BMJ site. The "award" is a silly publicity stunt by the denialists, as they require isolation by criteria that cannot be met. The Perth Group indeed have admitted it cannot be met due to HIV's toxicity to cells (which they deny exists elsewhere...). I pointed this out to them online and they ignored it.

Unfortunately perhaps for your search, I am as objective as they come. The truth is simply the truth. Objectivity does not mean allowing debate for the sake of debate, it means viewing all sides of an argument. I've done that. I've found serious flaws in the denialist viewpoint which continue to this day despite the proponents of those views being corrected, in private, in public, and in the scientific literature. As such, there really is no debate - there is simply the facts as they stand (the orthodox view) and a set of spurious strawmen-arguments and pseudoscientific statements against HIV causing AIDS.

The put it bluntly - in order to share the same scientific view as me, in other words to be objective, you have to reject the denialist viewpoint because it makes no scientific sense. If that means that it's not "objective", by your standards, then you won't find someone who shares the same viewpoints as me who is "objective".

The difference, ironically, between me and Liam Scheff is that he accused me of preventing debate with him here (when I did not) and I proved that he prevented debate on his blog (which he did).

That good sir sums up the entire denialist versus orthodox position on HIV and AIDS.

So, what you're not stating here, as usual, is worth more than what you do.

I posted all of your comments, and then stopped when you continuously told people asking you questions that you were there to "instruct" but not to "debate."

You're an incredible BS artist, Bennett, and first-class libeler, but you're a huge coward. You refuse to debate, always.

If you would agree to debate, then I'll let the conversation go on and on, if we're talking about a fair, open, public debate.

But you made it clear that the conversation was over. You were there as our better to lecture the rest of us.

That's not how it goes in the grown-up world. Maybe in the little-boy world of Aids medicine, where hacks like you get away with claiming authority over people you rob and steal choice, life and information from.

And that's where you're comfortable. Where you can tell people what to think. And that's not conversation, and it's not debate.

So, are you saying that you will openly DEBATE the people you openly LIBEL?

You let me know.

The invitation at the This & That is open.

What's a matter, Nicky, you needing a little attention all at once, with the sudden death of half of your paradigm?

No matter. You want all your comments up, you agree to play by some ground rules. Let's see if you can handle these:

You don't call anyone a "denialist." You refer to them respectfully. And you will be treated respectfully in return.

You stick to the subject. We pick a subject, we go through it, and when our points are elucidated sufficiently, we stop, and move to a new subject.

We hold the debate in a public place. You arrange for debates with the other members of Aidstruth, and the people who Aidstruth has libeled.

You want fair posting? Try fair behavior, "doc".

You let me know. You can let Dave Crowe know too. We're open to public debate, everyone you've libeled is.

AIDS denialists have been "debating" for years, and when their arguments boil down to "we're not going to believe anything you say" then what's the point in debating. Public debates such as the Parenzee trial, where the PG were faced with evidence that directly contradicted their statements are a case in point. Have they changed their minds? No. Despite having been faced with the irrefutable fact that they are wrong (their arguement for debate is flawed) they should stop.

I tried this for a year with them on the BMJ site and you can see how effective that was.

Debate unfortunately lends the denialist movement far more credence that it deserves - one may as well debate "intelligent design". I know that as a "journalist" you feel the need to do this, but as a doctor and scientist I'd rather see truthful facts presented to the public, not misconstrued lies.

The other thing that just occured to me is that you're coming into this whole thing way late. Duesberg wrote his criticisms back in 1988. I only started debating in 1998. You are asking for everyone to rehash the same tired arguments that have been debated ad nauseum for about 20 years.

So no, we're not going to debate, because we're fed up with it. It should have stopped 20 years ago.

I popped in randomly and saw Liam spouting BS so thought it was worth correcting him (yet again) so people such as yourself could know the truth.

If you have questions I'm sure that I have answers somewhere on this site. Or perhaps in the hundreds of other messages I have left over the web on misc.health.aids, sci.med or the BMJ debate. After I cut-and-pasted my umpteenth reply I stopped wasting my time with public arguments (they're not debates if people refuse to be educated).

There is nothing to debate unfortunately - all the denialist questions have answers, it's just that the denialists refuse to accept them. The real problem is that their questions are founded on false premises (e.g. that AZT is a toxic failed chemo drug, that antibodies prove immunity, that retroviruses cause acute disease, that STD's should be equal between the sexes). People like Duesberg started all these myths and the lay public doesn't know better. It's simply not true, and if you take these pseudofacts out of the equations there aren't any real questions to answer...not at least about whether HIV exists and causes AIDS.

Liam said my blog didn't allow comments. Truth be told he hadn't posted anything here to allow through. I wanted to point out that it was he in fact was should be held up as a censor of debate, not me. Since you seem to be defending him, rather than holding him to task, I rather think that you have an agenda (and at the very least you can be judged by the company you keep).

You are fast approaching the point where your comments are not worth posting either. I don't censor here, but I do moderate.

And I have two doctorates, for what it's worth. Even if I didn't, if what I'm saying is the truth it shouldn't matter if I was a nobel prize winner or a bus driver!

I link to the published literature, which if read and interpreted correctly should speak for itself.

The interpretation is helped by a little training and education (since you asked, one of my doctorates in in HIV molecular biology) but it doesn't take a doctorate to say that "Richard Beltz, one developer of AZT, told the Re-Appraising AIDS denialist listserve that AZT was inactive in his anti-cancer assays". That's a simple statement of truth. David Crowe even hosts the email on his website. And yet the AIDS Denialists still say that AZT was rejected because it was too toxic, not that it was not toxic enough. You tell me why they refuse to accept that truth (one could say they "deny" it). That simple email destroys an entire paradigm of the AIDS denialist movement. Without "toxic AZT" for example, they have no explanation for the so-called AZT-AIDS deaths, other than to accept that HIV killed them.

I rejected the rest of your diatribes as they were basically insults - it seemed like a 6 to 1 ratio of content, and that's probably a record for this site. Most denialists figure it's a waste of their time, but I will say that as a moderator it's really satisfying to shut the denialists up. I can hardly stop you from posting on your own blog, or the AME forum, or misc.health.aids, or anywhere else that's out there - but I don't see why I should give you yet another forum to spout on.

Is it ethical that he claims to be the ultimate Aids authority, who libels, attacks and denigrates public and private figures, and who then offers no ability to be questioned in debate, when he is actually more or less a failed computer programmer?

Who are his bosses?

What is his actual position?

What has he published?

Where does he collect his paycheck, and for what specific duties???

How did you represent yourself to the BBC when you and Aidstruth libeled the ICC orphan documentary, and threatened the BBC suits with being called "denialists" if they didn't capitulate?

Have you ever met a single child from the ICC?

Have you ever seen a single medical record from the ICC?

You libeled me and others for our coverage of the story. Have you done this homework?

I see in one blog you mention "calling ICC and getting to the bottom of this."

Did you? Did you get your hands on a Single medical record from the place?

Did you look at Joyce-Ann Hafford's records? You libel me for covering her story. You ignore her death, and the drug that killed her, and focus, again, on ephemera, in order to call me a liar.

Have you seen her medical records?

What is the extent of your medical knowledge of any story you pretend to write about?

Manu - it reads as if you're being sent information from someone else, but your questions are ones that are answered here on my blog, at least those about me. The paranoia and insinuations are laughable (as is the point that whoever asked the questions appears incapable of reading my own introduction on the site).

The computer programmer comment is amusing too, as I assume someone has googled me and stumbled onto my other life - and since that started in 2005 it's not as if that's my defining purpose in life... I hardly claim to be the ultimate authority on anything, I would guess that's someone like Liam putting words into my mouth. But I can show you my PhD thesis on HIV viral packaging if you'd like some evidence of relevant experience.

I would assume that it's pretty obvious what I do. As my front page says "I am currently working as a pediatric resident physician, with a goal to subspecialize in infectious disease. My salary is paid by New York State." As for duties you can take your pick - depending on the particular rotation I can be managing patients in an outpatient clinic, in the ICU, in the ER or on the inpatient floor (currently I'm senior resident overseeing a couple of interns and medical students on an inpatient unit). I could be writing prescriptions for ear infections or intubating a premature baby in the delivery room. In a few months I'll be transitioning to the fellowship. In the past AIDS denialists actually tried to get me fired from my pre-residency research position because I was debating them online. The chairman needless to say found the whole thing pretty funny.

When the ICC story broke I wasn't a member of AIDStruth, so I didn't represent myself to the BBC at all. I was very much on the sidelines of the story looking in until the end.

I didn't get access to medical records as without the patients' permission that would be a federal offence. Anyone who claims they have could get into a lot of trouble. However, to say everything I did say doesn't require me to see anything of the sort.

The simple facts are that Scheff and others created a story about trials at the ICC that were misleading and represented pseudoscientific "facts" as the truth, all because of a preconceived notion that HIV was harmless and that the AIDS studies must have been inherently flawed. The BBC recognized this to be the case once they realized that AIDS denialists were behind the story, not an independent investigator. It's the worst kind of journalism.

I'm more than happy to provide a few links on topics that I have written about.

The point is that if the stories of the ICC or any other AIDS denialist point, were grounded in decent science then they would have something worth saying. They're not. The thing that is so frustrating is that by refusing to be educated they waste my time in debating with them, so I no longer do so. I simple prefer to post statements of truth - pointing out errors in fact and logic, and leave the reader to make their own mind up.

The answers are no. You have never looked at any records for the ICC story, which you libel.

Or the Joyce-Ann Hafford story, which you libel.

Further, you won't debate.

And you're not an Aids doctor. You're a "senior resident."

Your comments are focused on any filigree that you can hang your favorite epithet ("LIARS!") upon.

But you won't talk about Nevirapine, the drug that has killed so many.

How does that make you a critical thinker, or a trustworthy source for information?

Please answer our other questions, as succinctly as you are able. They have been posted here, I think, already.

They go to Aidstruth's Nathan Geffen and his "victory" in getting micronutrient studies in South Africa made illegal.

Please also tell us where the rest - the major members - of Aidstruth have gone. It looks like they've you holding the bag.

Please be succinct, if you're able. You change the subject often, which I think you use to diffuse attention from your inability and unwillingness to respond logically.

For example, when we request that you debate those you libel, you write stories about Peter Duesberg.

We're not curious about Peter Duesberg. He's probably wrong about many things, and right about many. But we're not Duesbergians, here to argue anybody else's point of view.

We want to know about you. You, who have no expertise in the field you claim to be "un-debatable" in:

What medical body has given you authority to dispense critical advice and libelous attacks on critics of (your very limited and stupefyingly dogmatic interpretation of) the current mess called "Aids research?"

Who gives you the authority? You're not a doctor, and you're not a student in Aids medicine.

You have no published papers, and you don't run any studies.

But you pose as a doctor, and dispense "un-debatable" truths, in this field, and this field alone.

You claim to "correct" all critics. But you are not a doctor, researcher, specialist, or journalist in this field.

And you allow no dissent to your opinion - an opinion without sanctioned authority.

I think that constitutes a breach of the public trust, and of medical ethics.

If someone listens to you, they will walk away believing that they have no right to question any aspect of medical dogma. They may falsely believe that "hiv tests" are unquestionably accurate, standardized, or meaningful.

They may feel that they have no right to the option of invoking "informed consent" about any of the tests or drugs given in this (or any other) paradigm.

You are posing as a medical expert. You are not a medical expert.

You answers do not reflect medical ethics.

I think that you have been left at the top of the Aidtruth queue, because the others have run from the building, the collapsing building.

Where have John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, and Richard Jeffries gone, in relation to Aidstruth?

And no, it's not okay to do what you do. To claim medical expertise in an area where you have none. To libel but refuse debate, and to denigrate an entire class of people as "holocaust denialists" because they are better at reading the medical literature than you are.

It constitutes a crime, what you are doing.

If you put forward an opinion, and owned it as such, and allowed for debate, and did not claim medical expertise, you could possibly defend some of what you do here, but you'd have to stop the libeling people as a class.

What you do represents a hate-crime.

I want to know, for the record, where have the disappeared members of Aidstruth gone.

You say you're a recent member? How recent?

Who invited you to join the group?

What is your position there?

If you've never reviewed any of the medical records, study records, any official literature that form the basis for the crimes committed against children at ICC, and in Uganda in the NVP trial, and against Joyce-Ann Hafford, then you have to remove those blogs from your roster.

Or, you have to remove any notion from this blog that you have any right to claim a position of authority. You are endangering the lives of others who may be foolish enough to believe you without doing further research, because your approach is cultish and ultra-dogmatic.

You may be endangering your future ability to practice medicine, if you do not either stop libeling others, or stop claiming absolute, unquestionable authority in an area in which you have none.

I, as a journalist, a reporter, report the other side of the coin. I do not give medical advice. I advocate for informed consent.

If a person chose to take the tests and drugs which kill, but which you do not question, I would not even begin to presume that I had a right to stop them. As long as they were allowed to read all critical literature and make their informed decision.

You do not allow for that.

I'm going to quote you, for the record, with whatever you reply, as to where the missing members of Aidstruth have gone.

My God, you guys are amazing. The answers to the questions about who I work for and get paid by, and what I do are all covered.

John, Mark and Richard all found that AIDSTruth wasn't something they could commit their time to enough to put their name to it any more. I'm amazed it's taken this long for people to notice in fact (I think after John left people actually noticed, as he's been the loudest thorn in the denialist side). It's something that operates as consensus. In the same way I wasn't invited to the group by anyone, the group invited me - after I'd been involved peripherally in several discussions with various members of the group - I had after all been involved in AIDS denial debate for about 8 years or so at the time. I'm sure that more will join (at least one has in recent months), more will leave, and some may come back if they feel they can contribute again.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not posing as any kind of AIDS guru, so you're misrepresenting me when you say that I do. I don't really have to defend myself on that position...as it's a strawman you've invented! I'm flattered however. All I am is one of the few scientist/physicians who is bothered enough to write online about the issue. Most others are too busy actually doing the research or treating the patients to even know about AIDS denial, never mind try to do something about it.

The issue Liam is that you cannot argue that you have an inalienable right to promote "the other side of the coin" when the other side of the coin is killing people in South Africa because of horribly misguided health policies in the last decade, directly as a result of being influenced by AIDS denialists. You make it sound as if the other side is equally as valid (or not more so) than "my" side.

I really, really, really question that you (of all people) could understand the scientific literature better than the HIV/AIDS scientists. That's an incredible amount of arrogance on your part.

For example I did actually review the HIVNET012 NVP study protocol, which is something that YOU didn't do. If you did, then you basically lied about it, because your description of the study online and in your radio interview (which I heard) was incorrect on several counts. I detailed some of these on this blog.

So what is it - did you not read the study, and assume it was run the way you described, or did you read it and not understand it, or did you read it and spoke incorrectly on purpose? Your choice - you certainly didn't represent the study accurately. Where is YOUR medical/scientific education or training that gives you enough insight to properly interpret the science you are supposedly reading.

At the time of the ICC studies were drugs available that were proven to improve survival in adults: YES

At the time of the ICC studies were the same drugs allowed to be used in kids outside of studies: NO

Were the studies able to prove that the drugs were safe and effective in kids: YES

Did anyone at the ICC studies die AS A RESULT OF THE DRUGS: NO, according to the ICC and the NYS independent review of the studies here.

So, would Liam have us not give kids any form of proven adult therapy as they shouldn't be in studies...?

Would he have us use drugs randomly without first studying them in kids, even though he (as a practicing physician, oh, no, sorry, he's not) would be well aware that childhood physiology and pharmacology is different from that in adults?

There are many medications that aren't used in kids (or pregnant women) because people simply haven't done the research to show it's safe. HIV was a big enough deal that it was worth someone making that leap, or else we were going to have an awful lot of premature deaths on our hands - and for some genetically predetermined reason as a species we believe that no parent should have to bury their kid.

The ICC was just one study site from one institution running one set of studies. The foster-care issue is irrelevant as far as the need for treatment is concerned. Liam would perhaps have us believe that they were targeted for the studies, but presents no evidence of that, just insinuations. If they were specifically excluded from a life-saving antibiotic therapy study would Liam argue that they were being discriminated against and should instead be included... Oh wait, anti-HIV therapy IS a life-saving antibiotic!

Why is he pushing this issue? The bottom line is that the studies were needed or else the FDA wouldn't allow the drugs to be used in kids. The studies showed that the therapies were safe and effective. These therapies have now been shown to prolong life, reduce the risk of opportunistic infections, and reduce the risk of death in kids born with HIV.

Why does Liam have a problem with this? Does he serious expect all medications to be harmless? Does he prefer to give kids untested therapies or no therapies at all? These are the REAL questions that need answering, or else we cannot possibly put his agenda into context.

Can you please answer the questions, not with more assertions, which you have no evidence for, but with succinct answers.

True or false:

* Did the ICC trials occur?

* Did they use orphans abandoned by drug-addicted mothers?

* Did they involve FDA-labeled Black Box drugs in high dose combinations?

* What is a Black Box drug?

* Have children died at ICC?

* Has the ICC/Columbia Pres released the medical records from those trials?

The answer to "have children died" has been provided by staff, children and mothers of children at ICC. The answer is yes.

We have Seon, who died being pumped with Thalidomide.

Ariel, who died after having a tube inserted into his stomach to feed the drugs, which he was previously adverse to taking.

We have Shyanne, who had a stroke and went blind after having the tube surgery to feed the drugs, which she was adverse too. She was previously healthy, and Ariel failed after having the tube surgically implanted. Not before.

There are more. There's Ashley, another girl who didn't like the drugs, and was doing alright in terms of health, and had the tube put in, and died soon after.

These are stories that I have to live with, because they were related to me by the people who knew these kids. Staff, children, mothers, even volunteers at the ICC. And that's what I reported.

I personally knew Seon, who the nurses called "Lumpy", because he was covered in the lumps caused by the protease inhibitors.

So, I don't know which of these children was "saved." None of them, I think.

But, back to you. And please don't change the subject. Aids is a fraud. The tests are fraudulent, the diagnosis is absolutely fraudulent, and can be applied to any Black child born to a drug addict.

Again, for the record:

* Have you looked at a single medical record from ICC, interviewed a single doctor, nurse, child-care worker, or teen from ICC?

No, you have not.

I have, and I report what they say. They've gone on the public record. Some of them on TV, some for film, some for print, some on radio. But they're there.

Now, you are absolutely posing as an authority, an unquestionable authority on Aids, and this is fraud.

You are not an Aids doctor, researcher, or even mildly curious critic.

You're not a journalist. You could care less what real people experience. Joyce-Ann Hafford's death is nothing to you.

So, what are you?

You are apparently a religious fanatic for the paradigm.

I have no such religious convictions.

You must take down your blogs on ICC and on the Uganda trials, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You've done no original research to bolster your claims, which are libelous, and you ignore all contradictory evidence.

Moreover, you change the subject when asked simple questions.

You are not an Aids doctor, and this blog must come down, or be altered to reflect that you are just a 31-year old with an opinion. A hateful, childish opinion, but an opinion, nonetheless.

You've done no research. You are defrauding the public, who may read this site as an authoritative medical blog.

You are not in the position of a medical authority. You admit that you have no authority. But you act as though you do. You will not debate, you libel constantly, and you provide no clue to the gullible reader that you are only providing a debatable opinion.

Please answer these questions for the record:

Why did John P. Moore leave Aidstruth, and disappear from the scene? He has previously devoted himself to the destruction of all honest researchers who dared breathe a contrary public word about the phony aids diagnosis.

Where has he gone? Is he afraid of lawsuit? Is that why he left?

Who specifically invited you into Aidstruth?

What is your title?

What is your job function?

Who is the captain of Aidstruth at present. Who is the CEO?

Does your university know that you are a member of an organization devoted to destroying the lives and livelihoods of honest researchers who happen to be trying to find better solutions that David Ho or Robert Gallo to the false umbrella diagnosis, now no better than a brand name for poverty and drug abuse, in my opinion, called Aids?

Do they know that you are signed on to a group whose sole and soulless purpose is to destroy critical thought in medicine and research?

Do you have any sympathetic words to say to the children who were murdered at the ICC, via implantation of Gastric tubes, through which high dose multi-combinations of FDA Black box drugs were pumped day and night? Drugs including Nevirapine, and Thalidomide?

Did you ever try to interview any survivors of the ICC? Any staff who can give you their stories?

Would you be interested in interviewing survivors of drug trials?

Would you be interested in interviewing Audrey Seranno, who was given the phony Aids diagnosis for 9 years, poisoned with drugs, and then had it retracted?

Would you be interested in interviewing anyone at all who has anything contentious to say about the topic you write about?

1. Fundamental assumption: accept medicine the way it is. Therefore, your attempts to improve it are unwanted.

Who really knows how long those kids will live? Maybe all of them will die in their 20's due to ARV's? Who knows, there is evidence that ARV's prolong lives that are Th2 imbalanced, with respect to their immune system balance among Th1 and Th2 (helper T-cell inversion). The reason, the drugs depress the production of the cells that make these cytokines by killing them, and thereby abating an autoimmune condition.

But there is much evidence that these are harmful:

It has been about 7 years since it was published in The Journal, AIDS, that children born to ZDV-treated mothers "are more likely to have a rapid course of HIV-1 infection compared with children born to untreated mothers, as disease progression and immunological deterioration are significantly more rapid and the risk of death is actually increased during the first 3 years of life" [12. de Martino et al., Rapid disease progression in HIV-1 perinatally infected children born to mothers receiving zidovudine monotherapy during pregnancy. AIDS. 13 (8):927-933, May 28, 1999.The Italian Register for HIV Infection in Children. AIDS, 13:927-933, 1999].

Therefore, it behooves us to think about at least improving the situation for the children involved, don't you agree?

Discussion is warranted. Can we suppress the Th1-2 population by non-toxic means, or perhaps by interference. Suppose we invent a peptide that interferes with the harmful effects of Th2 cytokine-driven storms on the tissues and especially on other immune cells (since the Payer's patches go first finally, indicating complete disruption of the lymph system).

Are we really expected to believe that there is no room for growth in medicine? Critical analysis, and then discussion regarding weaknesses and strengths in a hypothesis are required.

Liam, I'm letting this last post through even though it's clearly crossing the border of reasonable discourse.

I'm not going to debate whether or not kids died at the ICC, because I'm sure some died from HIV. You can argue otherwise of course. We both know that an investigation ruled that no-one died as a result of drug toxicity, but you are free to ignore that if you like.

Your assertation that "any black child born to a drug addict" would test HIV+, because EVERY SINGLE CHILD in New York state gets a HIV test, and our clinic sees a tremendous number of babies born to drug-using mothers, and the ONE SINGLE child I know who is HIV+ in my own patient-list was born to a HIV+ white mother who didn't take her meds (her other child on the other hand she did take prophylaxis for, and he remains HIV-free). So go figure. (Incidentally, who appears more full of hyperbole here...hmm?)

You really, really seem hard to educate. How many times do I have to say it: AIDSTruth is a group. No single person decided to invite me. As a group, there is no leader, no roles. We have no "jobs" or "functions". To claim otherwise is to have an incredible amount of paranoia about the whole issue. Your world must be a very strange place to live in...

As I've stated numerous times, I researched HIV for over three years during the PhD (and besides, have read pretty much every major denialist article to boot over the last ten years) so your claim of lack of experience falls pretty short I'm afraid.

Critical thought is fine - uncritical, mindless acceptance of a series of falsehoods such as AIDS denial, and not even FAKING an attempt to learn anything about it is not fine. And that is why you aren't going to get very far with me Mr Scheff.

I'm amazed you can't even consider the option that you have been mislead, and that you are continuing to mislead others.

I researched HIV for over three years during the PhD (and besides, have read pretty much every major denialist article to boot over the last ten years) so your claim of lack of experience falls pretty short I'm afraid.

You are again posing a specialist. I've studied Aids for 6 years, and it's incredibly fraudulent, damaged paradigm.

I'm still not allowed to give public medical advice as you do.

And Aids is not your specialty.

And you are not a doctor.

That's point one.

I'm not going to debate whether or not kids died at the ICC, because I'm sure some died from HIV.

You have no evidence, you're not interested in research. There was no open investigation. The medical records have never been examined.

The NY Med examiner made it absolutely clear to me that any death, even from drug toxicity, would be assigned by the presiding physician.

It is up to these people, running illegal studies with orphans, to file a report that a child who dies from protease inhibitor and Nevirapine poisoning, or, to claim that they died of "Aids."

Any death in anybody with the false "hiv" diagnosis is an "Aids" death.

In Massachuesetts, people who have tested "positive" and committed suicide or died in accidents, have been countable as "Aids deaths."

Questions:

What is your job title?

Who is your boss?

Where did you study for your PhD, and who may be contact to confirm it?

You stand on the side that told me tests were reliable and specific. Liam does not.

You stand on the side that says I must take medication or i will die. Liam does not.

I threw my medication down the toilet three years ago now and I am still fine, better that i was even. Not that there was ever anything wrong with me, apart form the toxic body deforming side effects of HIV "black-box" label medication.

You and all those on your side of the argument are the ones who have misled me.

I accuse you of lies. I accuse you of misleading me. I accuse you of misleading others. I accuse you and all those like you of having blood on your hands.

Liam has not done any of that. You have. You do.

Thanks to Liam and those who like him fight people like you I am alive and well.

You are misleading people and you have no authority to do so.

You are a fraud.

It seems to me that all of you at AIDSTruth just say you have authority, but in actual fact you are all frauds. None of you have any authority at all, do you?

Who are you all really? Who gives you all this authority to tell us what is good for us?

So, AIDS is apparently not my specialty, despite having a PhD in HIV molecular biology and investigated AIDS denial and read the research for over ten years, and despite getting onto an infectious disease fellowship. Hmm.

And I'm apparently not a doctor, despite having passed the usual undergraduate medical exams in the UK AND the USA (and having been awarded the MB/BChir medical degrees from Cambridge University).

Feel free to contact the curriculum office at Cambridge (specifically Selwyn College) to verify any of this. My PhD supervisor was Andrew Lever in the department of medicine.

All of this is already online from the misc.health.aids newsgroup, so why you can't do your own research I don't know... You're not really convincing me (or I hope my readers) that you're not a lazy researcher.

Job title: technically it's "Assistant Clinic Instructor", but fundamentally it's "senior resident in pediatrics". My Boss I suppose is the chairman of the dept. Hey, I have a great idea, why don't you tell ME who my boss is - the chairman of the dept of pediatrics. Shouldn't take long for an investigative journalist, and I can't be expected to spoon feed you everything!

Here are the links of my past, since you might want prove that I'm not slandering you by accusing you of being lazy. All of the article links I provided today have my departmental affiliation.

I will not post any further comments of yours that that contain similar attacking material. I know you are simply trying to attack the messenger, but really, it's not working. You're making a(n even bigger) fool of yourself, which is the only reason why I allowed the post through :o)

By the way, my resident colleagues watching me over my shoulder say I should be far less polite to you. [shrugs]. If I didn't have more work to do I'd be wasting a whole lot more time with you...

How does AIDStruth work? That's a great question. We just email each other - someone might spot a message on a listserve, someone else might go to a conference, someone else might get a phone call. Articles are written by individuals and edited and commented by the group as a whole. When everyone is happy with the final copy it gets posted. It's really very simple. There are no "roles" with the exception of web-manager (and the time needed to run that role explains at least some of the people changes in AIDSTruth). I've never met any of these people in person, although I have spoken to a couple by phone and know several others from online discussions in years gone by.

So, anyway, at some point I'll reply to the rather more sensible series of comments that your friend sent to you, but you're distracting me from the real issues here.

From the beginning, or at least from the very early days of HIV/AIDS understanding, it was clear that HIV wasn't the rapidly progressive death sentence it was thought to be. The early cases were the outliers, the rapid progressors who presented with bad immune deficiency. The denialists ignore the literature from the early 1990s where 8-10 year of AVERAGE progression was clearly stated, and instead make out the AIDS message to be one of doom and gloom.

I'm glad you're doing well - I hope you continue to do well for some time! My advice is to stay off the meds unless you get clear signs of immune deficiency, or your labs get horribly screwy (low CD4 count, high viral load). My advice is the same advice as most every other HIV specialist in the world.

The scientific literature clearly shows increased risk (not certainty) of opportunistic infections with low CD4 counts, and it also shows that these risks go away with antivirals. On the other hand the literature also clearly shows that treating otherwise healthy people with good labs (hit hard, hit early) is a waste of time and effort and simply exposes people to side effects, and perhaps predisposes to viral drug resistance.

I've said this for years, and nothing in the literature has suggested we do anything else just yet. Drug holidays are a hit and miss affair, IL-2 immune stimulation is tough for the patient and doesn't work. Vaccines are still in clinical research with nothing outstanding to offer as yet.

So I hope I can show you that the "side" that you perceive is to a large degree a fabrication of the denialists. I do know that some docs are pushy with the meds, and docs in general need to listen to their patients needs and concerns more, so if you have had a personally crappy experience then I wouldn't be surprised, but don't lump the entire establishment in together with that!

And BTW - don't accuse me of blocking a post until it is actually blocked...you sent it three times after all.

Liam, unless you change your M.O. this will be your last post allowed through. You are following the pattern of every other AIDS denialist I have debated with, and it's not a debate, it's a spoonfeeding of information that they inevitably refuse to accept.

>>>A few notes. First, thanks for the links. We'll look into them.<<<<

Problem one: you should "look into" these kinds of things _before_ posting questions that could have been answered by them. It's a 5 minute online search.

>>>Noted: You always answer with sarcasm, so you never really have to tell the truth simply. You just insinuate that the asker or reader is too stupid to understand what was being asked or answered.<<<<

I actually answer with frustration, and I insinuate that the reader is capable of understanding the truth when presented with all the facts (as opposed to half of the story, and that half being misleading to start with).

>>>Makes it easy to think you're full of crap. Try short, clear, helpful answers, if you're concerned about appearing as a fraud.<<<<

Ah, you see I'm not concerned about that, because I'm not one :o)

>>>>Aids is not your specialty by your job description. You claim to work in general Pediatrics, as far as you've let us know.<<<<

AIDS is not my job description, but I would have thought that in denialist circles that would actually count for something! Surely therefore I can't be on the AIDS Industry bandwagon!!! But AIDS was certainly my be-all and end-all for some time, and that knowledge doesn't go away easily.

>>>>You gave Manu medical advice, which you claim is standard. Your advice should be:

"Go talk to a doctor you trust."<<<<

By using the word "claim" you are insinuating it is wrong. A simple 5 minute search would reveal the truth: do you really have to be spoonfed every time?

"Panel’s Recommendations:• Antiretroviral therapy should be initiated in patients with a history of an AIDS-defining illness or with a CD4 T-cell count <350 cells/mm3. The data supporting this recommendation are stronger for those with a CD4 T-cell count <200 cells/mm3 and with a history of AIDS (AI) than for those with CD4 T-cell counts between 200 and 350 cells/mm3 (AII).• Antiretroviral therapy should also be initiated in the following groups of patients regardless of CD4 T-cell count:a. Pregnant women (AI);b. Patients with HIV-associated nephropathy (AI); andc. Patients coinfected with HBV when treatment is indicated (BIII).• Antiretroviral therapy may be considered in some patients with CD4 T-cell counts >350 cells/mm3. (See text for further discussion.)• The necessity for patient adherence to a long-term drug regimen should be discussed in depth by the patient and clinician (AIII). Barriers to adherence should be addressed before therapy is initiated."

Your group's Nathan Geffen was crowing victory for helping make illegal vitamin studies in South Africa for people given the phony Aids diagnosis.<<<<

He was actually happy that the vitamin fraudster Rath was stopped from running his illegal, unregulated research studies in unsuspecting people, much like you claim was happening with the ICC. Rath has been accused with similar offenses in the UK, Netherlands, and USA. If you want to talk about conflict of interests, the denialists Anthony Brink and David Rasnick are board members of his company. They have a vested interest in promoting AIDS denial and refusal of conventional therapy in South Africa so they can tout their "cure". THAT's the real story behind the TAC's legal victory.

>>>>Can you name any micronutrient studies that have improved the lives of people given the phony Aids diagnosis?<<<<

Actually, the real question is, can YOU, since you would presumably prefer this to conventional HAART. The short, simple answer is "yes, I can". I am aware that some studies showed benefit in limited settings (malnutrition) but not in others (over-supplementation in otherwise well nourished people). I am aware that certain miconutrients might be depleted in HIV+ people but that the evidence for replacing these nutrients to improve symptoms or lab parameters is sketchy.

But I'm not going to spoonfeed you the information - that's not a debate, that's laziness. You ask questions, I do a lit search and post the answers. Hardly an equal exchange of ideas.

You have reminded me why (and why so many others in the conventional circles) no longer debate AIDS denialists.

Hang on...hang on...can I, as a non-professional scientist but baffled and probably naive observer come up with a solution/question that could save the sanity of all and finally put this tiresome non-debate to bed?

1. Get a patient with full blown AIDS.

2. Take a blood sample from them and centrifuge out anything not virus sized (if needed). Get any viruses found and...

3. Stick it under a microscope in a petri dish with human white blood cells etc.

This was basically done in 1984 when Montagnier and Gallo described what happened when they used this semi-purified virus in cell cultures in the lab.

The only difference was they didn't set up a video or time-lapse to show the cells dying, but you can simply set up multiple cultures and see the cells die in the innoculated dishes and not the others. From day to day it's pretty obvious what's happening.

I've done this myself, but not with blood-purified viruses: mine were grown from culture. Years back they started out as patient specimens but were cloned and turned into DNA plasmids for ease of use long before I got to use them.

You won't be able to see HIV on video as that needs electron microscopy, which wouldn't be very viable with live culture systems. It's a bit like seeing the effects of humans on Earth from space (the growth of cities for example, deforestation, the Great Wall of China) but not being able to see the individual people. Viruses are just too damn small.

Who am I?

I sometimes find people asking about me online, often on forums I cannot reply to. Here's the scoop.

My name is Nick Bennett (so when I post as "Bennett" I am posting under my real name).

I am a double-doctor, MD and PhD. My PhD research was in the molecular biology of HIV. I've debated the HIV/AIDS dissidents since mid-1998, and frankly I consider that a better qualification to be here doing this than anything else.

I have never received funding from any pharmaceutical company that makes HIV antivirals. I do not get and have not ever been paid to do this.

I am currently working as a fellow in pediatric infectious disease. My salary is paid by New York State.

I have this site to stop the spread of misinformation, mostly about HIV and AIDS but also about the accompanying scientific research.

I try to respond to all comments, but cannot guarantee when! I'm a busy little beaver a lot of the time. Besides, this site is intended more as an info portal than a discussion group.